Commentary and analysis to persuade people to become socialist and to act for themselves, organizing democratically and without leaders, to bring about a world of common ownership and free access. We are solely concerned with building a movement of socialists for socialism. We are not reformists with a programme of policies to patch up capitalism.

Saturday, May 23, 2015

NGOs - White Dominance and Lack of Ethnic Diversity

This
year's ranking of NGOs shows that most are based in the West although
they carry out their activities in the Global South; are
disproportionately headed by white men, and many continue to display
stereotypical and patronising images of Africans as poor and needy
victims.
Teju Cole wrote that a white saviour is someone who, “supports brutal
policies in the morning, founds charities in the afternoon, and
receives awards in the evening”.
Global_Geneva recently released the third annual Top NGO ranking, and unfortunately, it’s more of the same. In 2013, I reviewed the Board profiles of the previous ranking, focusing on their gender balance and diversity, and links to the tobacco, weapons and finance industries. The findings
were troubling. Many of the listed NGOs were not adequately diverse or
representative, and over half had links to the above industries.
This year’s ranking reveals similarly disturbing trends. Though 78% of the activities of the NGOs listed take place in the majority world,
the ranking remains skewed towards NGOs headquartered in the West
(64%). This once again sends signals about who has value and expertise,
and reinforces the fallacy that citizens of Western countries are best
equipped to change the world. c c PZ

Diversity continues to lag. Women and men of European origin are still
over-represented in leadership positions (over 60% overall and by
gender). The representation of women is still relatively low (40%, of
whom 63% are of European origin). More disturbing, however, is the lack
of ethnic diversity. c c PZ

The statistics on Africa[1] and Africans (including the diaspora) are once again particularly disconcerting.
• Only 5% (26) of the 500 NGOs listed have their headquarters in Africa,
yet 33% of activity takes place in that region. Of those 26, only 7 are
in the top 100 and most (9) are found in the last tier (401-500).
• Only 4% of CEOs are of African descent.
• People of African descent are the only group in which there are fewer
male than female CEOs. This implies an institutional bias against black
men.
• In the regional rankings, only 25 NGOs have been selected for the top
African ranking compared to 100 each in Europe, North America and
Asia/Australasia. Moreover, of the 25, 8 are outside the African
continent (2 in Bahrain, 3 in Israel, 3 in Jordan).
• Many NGOs continue to display stereotypical and patronising images and videos that portray Africans in particular as poor and needy victims devoid of agency.
In addition, a large proportion of the ‘top’ NGOs continue to appoint
leaders who are not representative of the communities and groups they
claim to serve, and retain links to corporate interests that appear to
be inconsistent with their mandate or public identity.

As with the previous ranking, a number have Board members as well as
funders with links to the tobacco, finance and weapons industries. Some,
such as Room to Read for instance, pride themselves in such links: ‘Our
leadership team is comprised of veterans of such venerable corporations
as Goldman Sachs…’.
Others are partnered with corporations that have been accused of human
rights and environmental violations: for example, Akshaya Patra with
Monsanto to provide food for children, Care with Cargill to combat
poverty, Vital Voices with Walmart to increase economic opportunities
for women, Injaz-al-Arab with ExxonMobil to mentor Arab youth. The
International Crisis Group receives support from corporate members of
its International Advisory Council, including Shell and Chevron.
Some also have affiliations with individuals whose political or
professional record is arguably inconsistent with the mandates of the
NGOs they serve: examples include the International Rescue Committee
(Henry A. Kissinger, Condoleeza Rice and Madeleine Albright, Overseers),
the International Crisis Group and ONE Campaign (Lawrence Summers,
Board member), and Operation Blessing (M. G. ‘Pat’ Robertson, Board
member).

The rather broad failure of many of the listed NGOs to have
representative leaderships is reflected in some of their publicity
statements and attitudes. Some exhibit slogans that offer absurdly
simplistic solutions (‘You can cure starvation’ – Concern Worldwide;
‘Change the World in 4 clicks’ – Ufeed). Others display hubristic
attitudes (S.O.U.L. Foundation says that its President represents ‘a new
generation of young American activists who are quickly growing into a
group of enthusiastic non-profit entrepreneurs and leaders who are
choosing a piece of the world and changing it’; GreenHouse’s ambition is
‘trying to save the world by developing new models of social change to
better people’s lives’). FAME World even adopts a disturbingly
traditional missionary approach: it takes ‘Christ to the unreached and
underserved’ but provides no assistance to non-Christian organisations.

We are all incoherent. Recognising this, where is the line between incoherence and deceit?
As individuals, we can easily deceive ourselves into believing that we
do not perpetuate global inequities and discriminatory attitudes we
claim to oppose. Organisations are no different. When NGOs are
challenged to meet standards of integrity and fail to do so, they start
to fit Teju Cole’s definition of white saviours.
International aid and advocacy is a multi-billion dollar industry and
the corporate structures of the largest NGOs increasingly resemble those
of large businesses. At the same time, NGO appeals for public support
and public money rely heavily and distinctively on their claim to moral
authority. Given this, it is entirely reasonable to expect NGOs to
demonstrate their institutional integrity, including accountability to
those they claim to serve. Unfortunately, Global_Geneva takes neither of
these criteria into account. By choosing to rank so many NGOs in the
manner it does, Global_Geneva and those who support it reinforce
paternalist models of decision-making and governance that should be
challenged rather than lauded.